12 September 2014

No, No = Yes

Mr Mustard is persistent and not easily put off.You need to be the same if you are challenging a PCN.It is a game of brinkmanship and Mr Mustard will go to the wire because once you have forgotten about the 50% discount you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. You will have read Mr Mustard's guide (top left of the blog if you haven't you naughty reader) and know there are three rounds. Here are the arguments advanced in the three rounds of a recent PCN:Round 1: informal representations in response to a PCN.You have issued a PCN for failing to pay in Percy Rd. I have seen a PayByPhone receipt for parking in Percy Road that day, for £1.20. Payment was made for this vehicle at 16:30Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur.Secondly, the sign in the council's photographs is not authorised for use on its own, only as a sign plate in conjunction with a standard pay-and-display sign. The council has therefore not properly signed the location in accordance with the Secretary of State's authority and may not issue a PCN.Please cancel the PCN.

Response: The council are not able to cancel your PCN.Round 2: formal representations in response to a Notice to Owner (they may look familiar: you can quite properly make the same representations as before).You have issued a PCN for failing to pay in Percy Rd. I have seen a PayByPhone receipt for parking in Percy Road that day, for £1.20. Payment was made for this vehicle at 16:30.Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur.Secondly, the sign in the council's photographs is not authorised for use on its own, only as a sign plate in conjunction with a standard pay-and-display sign. The council has therefore not properly signed the location in accordance with the Secretary of State's authority and may not issue a PCN.Please cancel the PCN.Response: We do not believe it would be appropriate to cancel.

Round 3: filing an Appeal at PATAS (you should be suffering double déjà vu).You have issued a PCN for failing to pay in Percy Rd. I have seen a PayByPhone receipt for parking in Percy Road that day, for £1.20. Payment was made for this vehicle at 16:30.Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur.Secondly, the sign in the council's photographs is not authorised for use on its own, only as a sign plate in conjunction with a standard pay-and-display sign. The council has therefore not properly signed the location in accordance with the Secretary of State's authority and may not issue a PCN.Please cancel the PCN.

Response: The Council has re-examined all of the evidence and on this occasion has decided to not contest your appeal. The PCN has been cancelled due to a processing error.

Is it odd that the processing error was not noticed at rounds 1 & 2?The challenge that was made at all three stages was the same.All the council have achieved is wasting £40 on a PATAS Appeal as that is payable as soon as the Appeal is lodged regardless of whether they contest it or throw in the towel as they did in this case.The PCN was only worth £60 so the council are really out of pocket on this one. They should probably accept all formal representations against lower level (i.e. £60) PCN as otherwise they will; lose money as if half are upheld they have an average income of £30 with a cost of £40 giving a net loss of £10 per PCN. Smart.

So now you know not to be put off by whatever seemingly definite "no" answer the council give you, twice, they may simply be bluffing to try and get you to cough up quietly and they might just throw in the towel when the going gets tough.Mr Mustard has never yet failed to progress from round 1 to round 3 so when answering his round 2 representations the council should bear in mind that a "no" answer means they will have to write a cheque for £40 and they will almost certainly have zero income to show for it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

N.B. the wrong bay was paid for and the road was the same as was the tariff so although the paid for wrong location is usually a losing argument Mr Mustard was intending to show that the Traffic Management Order had not been breached. He also had another argument he had not previously advanced as a reserve for the day of the hearing (without needing to produce any further evidence).